Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/inquiryintoequalOOsmit 


AN  INQUIRY 


INTO  THE 


EQUAL  BIGHTS  OF  THE  STATES 


AS  TO  THE 


EXTENSION  OR  NON-EXTENSION  OF  SLAVERY 


INTO  THE  TERRITORIES. 


BY  AN  INDIANIAN. 


INDIANAPOLIS: 

ELDER  AND  HARKNESS,  PRINTERS. 


July,  1856. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 


The  writer  of  the  following  tract  was  born  and  partly 
raised  in  South  Carolina.  He  has  always  been,  and  still  is,  a 
Democrat,  of  the  Jefferson  and  Jackson  schools.  The  first 
vote  he  wras  entitled  to  give  for  President,  he  cast  for  General 
Jackson,  in  1828  ;  and  since  that  time  he  has  acted  with  the 
Democratic  party. 

Believing  that  the  doctrine  of  EQUALITY  of  the  States 
as  to  rights  in  the  Territories,  as  stated  and  insisted  on  by 
the  South,  is  bewildering  and  confusing  a  great  many,  he  has 
thought  it  proper  to  pen  down,  and  give  to  the  public,  the 
following  tract.  If  it  shall  give  any  aid  or  assistance  to  any 
portion  of  his  fellow  citizens,  the  writer’s  end  will  be  attained. 
If,  however,  it  does  neither,  it  will  be  but  little  time  and  labor 
that  the  writer  will  have  lost ;  and  he  hopes  his  fellow  citizens 
will  pardon  him  for  his  impertinence  in  giving  them  his 
thoughts  on  a  subject  now  agitating  the  public  mind. 


a  o 
DA 


$ wiA>  I  u.  siMMK-y. 

AN  INQUIRY  INTO  EQUAL  RIGHTS. 

- - 


The  people  of  the  free  and  slave  States  differ  in  opinion  as 
to  the  propriety  of  the  institution  of  Slavery.  This  differ¬ 
ence  is  antipodal  and  irreconcilable.  While  the  people  of  the 
slave  States  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  institution  is  proper 
and  desirable,  and  establish  it  by  law,  the  people  of  the  free 
States  are  of  opinion  that  it  is  improper  and  undesirable, 
and  prohibit  it  by  law. 

The  Constitution  guarantees  to  each  and  all  of  them  the 
right  to  enjoy  their  opinions,  and  carry  them  out  by  legisla¬ 
tion  in  their  respective  States. 

The  fact  that  the  one  adopts  and  retains  the  institution, 
while  the  other  rejects  and  prohibits  it,  shows  that  they  differ 
radically  and  irreconcilably  upon  the  subject.  As  the  Consti¬ 
tution  guarantees  to  each  the  right  to  enjoy  and  act  upon  its 
views  within  itself,  the  law  of  comity,  and  of  good  feeling 
among  them  as  different  members  of  the  same  confederacy, 
requires  that  each  leave  the  other  unmolested  in  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  its  opinions,  and  unmolested  in  its  acts  under  them. 
They  differ  radically,  in  their  views,  upon  the  subject.  They 
should  agree  to  differ,  without  either  of  them  molesting  the 
other  on  account  of  its  opinions.  Common  sense  and  com¬ 
mon  courtesy,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Constitutional  obligations, 
and  the  Christian  law  of  love — forbearing  one  to  another — 
suggest  this  as  the  proper  course  for  each  and  all  to  pursue. 
It  is  tjie  course  practiced  by  all  good  citizens  in  their  neigh¬ 
borhood  relations.  Two  neighbors  differ  radically  in  their 
religious  views.  The  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  country 
guarantee  to  each  the  free  enjoyment  of  his  views,  and  the 
right  to  worship  God  accordingly.  All  good  citizens,  in  such 
circumstances,  treat  each  other  respectfully  and  courteously, 
while  each  forbears  to  molest,  disturb,  or  even  annoy  his 
neighbor  respecting  his  religious  views  ;  but  each,  thanking 
God  that  his  lot  is  cast  in  a  land  where  he  is  permitted  to  sit 
under  his  own  vine  and  his  own  fig-tree,  and  none  dare  molest 
or  make  him  afraid,  freely  worships  God  according  to  the  die- 


4 


tales  of  his  own  conscience  and  judgment,  and  as  freely  ac¬ 
cords  to  his  neighbor  the  same  enjoyment. 

This  principle  of  action  lies  at  the  foundation  of  our  insti¬ 
tutions.  It  is  of  the  very  essence  of  our  political  system.  It 
is,  that  each  citizen  should  so  enjoy  his  own  rights  as  not  to 
infringe  upon  his  neighbor’s  rights.  And  the  same  principle 
ttat  is  the  rule  as  between  neighbors,  is  the  rule  as  between 
t™  States.  All  good  citizens,  in  all  the  States,  so  regard  it, 
and  govern  their  action  accordingly. 

But,  unfortunately,  some  citizens  in  both  the  slave  and  free 
States,  do  not  govern  their  conduct  by  these  principles.  They 
are  not  content  to  enjoy  their  own  rights  and  privileges  in 
their  own  way,  in  their  own  States,  but  they  desire  to  extend 
the  blessing  of  their  own  views  to  their  neighbors  of  other 
States,  and  have  them  to  adopt  them.  Some  in  the  slave 
States,  acting  thus,  insist  that  the  blessing  of  their  institution 
should  be  extended  out  of  their  own  State  ;  and  some  in  the 
free  States  insist  that  the  blessing  of  their  views  should  be 
extended  out  of  their  own  States  into  the  slave  States.  Both 
of  these  are  wrong.  For  not  being  content  with  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  their  own  views,  within  their  own  territory,  by  en¬ 
deavoring  to  thrust  them  upon  others  they  infringe  upon  the 
rights  of  others — the  others  having  the  right  to  entertain  their 
views  unmolested.  Hence  1  say  they  are  both  wrong.  For 
however  commendable  it  may  be  to  enlighten  our  neighbor, 
and  reclaim  him  from  an  error,  if  he  has  fallen  into  one,  to 
attempt  it  in  a  way  that  molests,  annoys,  and  irritates  him, 
and  to  persist  in  it  after  he  desires  us  to  desist,  is  wrong,  and 
an  infringement  of  his  rights  as  an  American  citizen. 

But  the  large  mass  of  the  people,  both  in  the  free  States,  and 
of  the  slave  States,  are  disposed  to  enjoy  their  own  views,  and 
the  practices  founded  on  them,  in  their  own  States,  yielding 
and  guaranteeing  to  every  other  State  the  like  privileges. 
There  is  not  more  than  one  per  cent,  of  the  population  of  the 
North  that  is  disposed  to  molest,  disturb,  or  interfere  with 
slavery  in  the  States  where  it  exists.  These  are  Abolitionists 
in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term.  Whether  the  fire-eaters  of 
the  South  are  a  greater  or  less  proportion  ot  the  population 
there,  I  am  not  sufficiently  informed  to  say.  I  hope  they  are 
not  greater  ;  while  public  indications  would  seem  to  say  that 
they  are. 

In  the  Territories,  however,  the  question  presents  a  differ¬ 
ent  aspect.  They  are  the  common  property  of  all  the  States, 
and  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  have,  or  should  have,  equal 
rights  therein.  This  is  insisted  on  by  Southern  citizens  and 
statesmen.  They  contend  that  to  prohibit  the  extension  of 


5 


slavery  into  the  Territories  violates  this  equality,  and  is  ag¬ 
gression  upon  their  rights.  If  this  is  so — if  the  prohibition  of 
slavery  in  the  Territories  is  a  violation  of  the  principle  of 
equality  among  the  States,  and  is  aggressive  upon  the  consti* 
tutional  rights  of  any  of  the  States — it  should  not  be  allowed  ; 
while  upon  the  other  hand,  if,  it  is  not  so — if  the  prohibition 
of  slavery  in  the  Territories  is  not  a  violation  of  the  principle 
of  equality  among  the  States,  and  is  not  aggressive  upon  the 
constitutional  rights  of  any  of  the  States — then  the  course  of 
Southern  statesmen  is  unjustifiable  ;  and  tending,  as  it  does, 
very  much  to  excite  and  exasperate  the  people  of  the  differ¬ 
ent  sections  of  the  Union,  is  reprehensible. 

I  propose  to  examine  this  question,  and  see,  if  possible, 
where  the  truth  is.  For  the  maxim  of  Jackson  as  to  our  for¬ 
eign  policy  may  not  improperly  be  applied  to  us  as  States  of 
this  Union  :  Ask  for  nothing  but  what  is  clearly  right ;  and 
submit  to  nothing  that  is  wrong. 

We  should  be  certain,  however,  what  are  our  clear  rights 
as  States,  and  as  citizens  of  States,  before  we  insist  on  them, 
and  say  that  we  will  not  submit  to  any  other  course  of  policy 
than  that  we  may  have  marked  out  as  being  our  right. 

Before  proceeding,  however,  I  think  it  proper  to  let  the 
Southern  gentlemen,  and  those  who  contend  for  their  doctrine, 
state  their  own  positions  in  their  own  language  ;  because  this 
is  fair  and  right  ;  and  moreover,  I  do  not  wish  to  perpetrate 
the  folly,  or  be  guilty  of  the  absurdity  that  is  so  often  prac¬ 
ticed,  of  combating  or  demolishing  a  position  or  doctrine  that 
is  not  contended  for  on  the  other  side,  instead  of  meeting  and 
combating  what  is  contended  for.  Hence  1  lay  before  my 
readers  the  following  extracts,  which  I  believe  are  fully  and 
fairly  made,  so  that  their  contextual  import  can  be  fully  seen 
and  understood. 


The  States  of  the  Union  are  political  equals — each  State  has  the  same  rights  as 
every  other  State — no  more,  no  less.  The  exercise  of  this  prohibition  [the  urohi* 
bitiori  of  slavery  in  the  Territories]  violates  this  equality,  and  violates  justice.  By 
the  laws  of  nations,  acquisitions,  either  by  purchase  or  conquest,  even  in  despotic 
governments,  enure  to  the  benefit  of  all  the  subjects  of  the  State;  the  reason  given 
lor  this  principle,  by  the  most  approved  publicists,  is,  that  they  are  the  fruits  of 
the  common  blood  and  treasure.  This  prohibition  destroys  this  equality,  excludes 
a  part  of  the  joint  owners  from  an  equal  participation  and  enjoyment  of  the  com¬ 
mon  domain,  and  against  justice  and  right,  appropriates  it  to  the  greater  number. 
Therefore,  so  far  from  being  a  necessary  and  proper  means  of  executing  granted  pow¬ 
ers,  it  is  an  arbitrary  and  despotic  usurpation, against  the  letter,  the  spirit,  and  the 
declared  purposes  of  the  Constitution ;  for  its  exercise  neither  “promotes  a  more 
perfect  union,  nor  establishes  justice,  nor  insures  domestic  tranquillity,  nor  pro¬ 
vides  for  the  common  defense,  nor  promotes  the  general  welfare,  nor  secures  the 
blessings  ot  liberty  to  ourselves  or  our  posterity,”  but  on  the  contrary,  puts  in 
jeopardy  all  these  inestimable  blessings.  It  loosens  the  bonds  of  union,  seeks  to 
establish  injustice,  disturbs  domestic  tranquillity,  weakens  the  common  defense, 
and  endangers  the  general  welfare  by  sowing  hatreds  and  discords  among  our  peo¬ 
ple,  and  puts  in  eminent  peril  the  liberties  of  the  white  race,  by  whom  and  for 


6 


whom  the  Constitution  was  made,  in  a  vain  effort  to  bring  them  down  to  an 
equality  with  the  African,  or  to  raise  the  Airican  to  an  equality  with  them.  Pro¬ 
vidence  has  ordered  it  otherwise,  and  vain  will  be  the  efforts  of  man  to  resist  this 
decree.  This  effort  is  as  wicked  as  it  is  foolish  and  unauthorized.  It  does  not 
benefit,  but  injures  the  black  race ;  penning  them  up  in  the  old  States  will  necessa¬ 
rily  make  them  more  wretched  and  miserable,  but  will  not  strike  a  fetter  frcm 
their  limbs.  It  is  a  simple  wrong  to  the  white  race,  but  it  is  the  refinement  of 
cruelty  to  the  blacks.  Expansion  is  as  necessary  to  the  increased  comforts  of  the 
slave  as  to  the  prosperity  of  the  master. 

The  constitutional  construction  of  this  point  by  the  South  works  no  wrong  to 
any  portion  of  the  Republic,  to  no  sound  rules  ol  construction,  and  promotes  the 
declared  purposes  of  the  Constitution.  We  simply  propose  that  the  common  Ter¬ 
ritories  be  left  open  to  the  common  enjoyment  of  all  the  people  of  the  United 
►States,  that  they  shall  be  protected  in  their  persons  and  property  by  the  Federal 
Government  until  its  authority  is  superseded  by  a  State  Constitution,  and  then  we 
propose  that  the  character  of  the  domestic  institutions  of  the  new  State  be  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  freemen  thereof.  This  is  justice — this  is  constitutional  equality. — 
Toombs'  Address  in  Tremont  Temple ,  Boston. 


Let  there  be  no  legislative  aggression  on  either  side.  Look  through  the  records 
of  the  country,  and  show  me  a  single  act,  from  the  beginning  of  the  Government 
to  this  hour,  where  the  South  have  perpetrated  any  aggression  on  the  North,  and 
I  would  claim  it  as  a  privilege  to  strike  it  from  the  statute  book.  Nor  do  I  com¬ 
plain  of  any  on  the  other  siae  until  1820  ;  but  I  do  affirm  that  the  moment  when 
you  said  we  should  be  shut  out  from  the  common  Territories  of  the  Union  unless 
we  abandoned  our  slave  property,  it  was  aggression.  It  is  aggression  to  exclude 
fifteen  States  of  this  Union  from  the  common  Territories,  purchased  by  the  com¬ 
mon  blood  and  common  treasure.  We  think  no  fair  man  can  deny  that  proposi¬ 
tion. —  Toombs'  Speech  in  reply  to  Hale. 

The  common  property  is  open  to  the  common  enjoyment  of  all ;  It  t  it  remain  so, 
and  let  us  unite  and  firmly  support  those  measures  which  will  protect  all  alike  in 
the  peaceful  enjoyment  of  their  rights. — From  the  same  speech. 


I  never  contended  that  I  desired  a  law  to  carry  slavery  into  a  Territory,  and  I 
never  wanted  a  law  to  exclude  it.  All  that  I  have  contended  for  is,  that  the  com¬ 
mon  domain  of  this  Government,  acquired  by  the  common  blood  and  treasure  of 
all  parts  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  just  as  free  to  one  class  of  citizens  as  to 
another.  When  the  people  of  a  Territory  are  in  the  process  of  approaching  what 
may  be  called  the  maturity  of  their  Territorial  existence — a  State  Government— -I 
say  much  is  to  be  pardoned  to  the  opinion  which  prevails  at  the  time.  But,  sir,  it 
an  insulting  interference  were  to  be  made  by  a  majority  of  Congress,  or  such  an 
interference  as  would  exclude  a  slaveholder  on  the  broad  ground  that  he  was  un¬ 
worthy  of  equality  with  a  non-slaveholding  population,  do  you  suppose  I  would 
stay  in  the  Union  if  I  could  get  out  of  it  ?  That  is  the  true  question  —Senator 
Butler ,  in  the  Senate. 


The  distinct  issue  is  about  to  be  evolved  between  the  parties  in  this  country,  on 
which  the  next  Presidential  election  will  turn,  and  on  the  solution  of  which  the 
permanency  of  this  Union  depends.  That  issue  is  foreshadowed  in  the  repeal  of 
the  Missouri  Compromise,  and  in  the  enactment  of  the  Kansas- Nebraska  law. 
This  legislation  gives  practical  expression  to  the  feeling  and  movement  that  is 
bringing  about  the  issue,  but  does  not  accurately  and  fully  define  it.  The  South  is 
about  to  assert  and  maintain  its  equality  in  the  Union.  The  men  of  the  South, 
even  when  they  differ  on  the  abstract  question  of  slavery  in  the  general,  are  about 
to  say  to  the  Federal  Government,  the  common  agent  of  all  the  States,  “  You  shall 
know  no  difference  between  the  property  and  the  institutions  of  the  South  and 
those  of  the  North.”  “Be  slavery  right  or  wrong  in  the  abstract,  you,  as  equal 
agents  of  slaveholders  and  non-slaveholders,  are  bound  to  see  that  it  is  admitted, 
like  any  other  property,  into  all  the  Territories  of  the  Union,  and  equally  secured 
and  protected  after  being  so  admitted.”  Any  ground  short  of  that  is  abolition— is 
an  insult,  a  wrong,  and  a  robbery  of  the  South. — Richmond  {Va.)  Enquirer,  of 
March  1UA,  1856. 


I  think  it  may  be  fairly  assumed  that  the  foregoing  extracts 
assert  and  maintain  the  following  propositions  : 


I.  That  each  of  the  States,  and  the  citizens  of  each  of  the 
States,  have  equal  political  and  constitutional  rights  in  all  the 
Territories  of  the  Union  ;  because  the  Territories  are  the 
common  property,  acquired  by  the  common  blood  and  treas¬ 
ure  of  the  Union  ;  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment  to  protect  all  alike  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  in 
the  Territories. 

II.  Therefore,  the  slaveholders  have  a  right  to  go  to  the 
Territories,  with  their  slaves,  and  the  Federal  Government 
should  there  recognize  their  property  in  their  slaves,  and  pro¬ 
tect  them  in  the  enjoyment  of  that  right  of  property  ;  and  if 
it  refuses  to  do  it,  it  is  an  aggression  upon  their  equal  rights,  and 
will  justify  them  in  going  out  of  the  Union,  if  they  can  get 
out. 

The  first  proposition  is  true  ;  but  the  second  is  a  non 
sequitur. 

We  often  deceive  ourselves  in  our  reasoning  by  not  suffi¬ 
ciently  scrutinizing  the  terms  wre  use  in  stating  our  proposi¬ 
tions.  If  the  minor  is  not  contained  in  the  major,  our  conclu¬ 
sion,  of  course,  is  erroneous. 

Because  the  Territories  are  the  common  property  of  the 
Union,  all  the  citizens  of  all  the  States  have  a  common  right 
to  go  to,  and  occupy,  and  use  them.  This  conclusion  natu¬ 
rally  and  necessarily  follows,  from  the  premises. 

But  when  we  say  that  because  all  the  citizens  of  all  the 
States  have  a  common  right  to  go  to,  use,  and  occupy  the 
Territories  on  account  of  their  being  the  common  property  of 
the  Union,  they  therefore  have  a  right  to  take  with  them  all 
their  other  property  of  every  kind,  and  hold  it  there,  we  cover 
up  a  sophism  by  our  language,  and  deceive  ourselves  without 
perceiving  where  the  fallacy  lies.  We  all  have  a  common 
right  to  go  to,  and  use  the  Territories,  because  they  are  com¬ 
mon  property,  and  are  held  by  a  common  tenure  ;  but  other 
property,  which  is  individual  property,  and  not  held  by  a  com¬ 
mon  tenure,  stands  in  a  different  category.  When  we  insist 
upon  taking  that  private  property  there,  and  holding  it  as 
private  property,  we  are  insisting  upon  taking  with  us  the  law 
of  that  private  property — the  law  establishing  the  tenure  of 
that  property.  And  here  we  begin  to  discover  the  sophism, 
and  that  we  are  using  the  term  property ,  when  we  really 
mean  law  of  property.  If  all  the  citizens  of  all  the  States 
have  a  right  to  go  to  the  Territories,  and  take  with  them  all 
their  tenures  of  property,  and  be  protected  there  by  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government  in  their  tenures  of  property,  then  the  equality 
contended  for  will  obtain,  and  the  equal  rights  of  all  the  citi¬ 
zens  in  all  the  Territories  will  be  secured.  But  this  leads  to 


8 


an  absurdity  ;  and  it  is  an  old  established  principle  of  logic, 
that  a  proposition  which  results  in  an  absurdity  is  untrue. 

Horses,  cattle,  &c.,  are  declared  to  be  property  by  common 
law — property  in  them  is  held  by  a  common  law  tenure.  The 
true  tenure  dates  much  further  back  than  the  common  law, 
and  it  is  found  in  the  28th  verse  of  the  first  chapter,  and  the 
2d  verse  of  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  ;  but 
our  system  of  civil  government  derives  it  from  the  common 
law.  We  have  no  statute  in  any  State,  declaring  and  enact¬ 
ing  that  horses,  cattle,  &c.,  are  property.  But  all  the  citi¬ 
zens,  of  all  the  States,  recognize  the  common  law  tenure  of 
property,  and  agree  in  regarding  them  as  property.  When 
they  go  to  the  common  Territories,  then,  with  their  horses 
and  cattle,  they  all  recognize  property  in  them,  and  respect 
the  tenure  ;  and  this  is  done  because  the  common  law,  which 
is  the  law  of  the  nation  as  well  as  of  all  the  States,  establishes 
the  tenure. 

But  slaves  are  not  property  by  common  law.  Neither  are 
they  included  in  either  of  the  before  cited  patents  given  to 
Adam  and  Noah  and  their  posterity.  They  are  only  made 
property  by  municipal  regulation — the  law  of  the  State. 
Prigg  vs.  The  Commonwealth  of  Penn.,  16  Pet.,  539.  The 
tenure  is  created  by  the  statute  of  the  State  ;  and  by  the  gen¬ 
eral  law  of  nations,  no  other  State  or  nation  is  bound  to  re¬ 
cognize  the  tenure.  Do.,  611.  The  non-slaveholding  States, 
and  their  citizens,  are  not  bound  to  recognize  the  tenure,  only 
so  far  as  the  Constitution  makes  it  obligatory  upon  them  to 
recognize  it ;  and  that  is,  to  recognize  it  so  far  as  to  deliver 
slaves  up  on  claim,  to  be  taken  back  to  the  State  (not  Terri¬ 
tory)  they  escaped  from. 

This  being  the  case,  when  the  citizens  of  the  slave  States 
claim  to  go  to  the  Territories  with  their  slaves,  and  to  be  pro¬ 
tected  in  their  property  in  them  there,  they  claim  to  take  with 
them  their  law  of  property  in  slaves — their  tenure  of  slavery, 
and  to  be  protected  in  it  ;  which  is  but  claiming  that  their 
municipal  lawr  of  slavery  be  established,  as  the  law,  in  the 
Territories.  For  the  state  of  slavery  is  a  creature  of  mu¬ 
nicipal  law,  and  cannot  exist  without  it  ;  and  to  insist  that  the 
Federal  Government  protect  it  as  a  property  right,  is  but  to 
insist  that  the  Federal  Government  enact  the  municipal  law 
creating  it. 

But  if  equality  requires  the  Federal  Government  to  recog¬ 
nize  and  enforce,  in  the  Territories,  the  municipal  law  of  the 
slave  States  establishing  the  state  of  slavery,  which  their 
citizens  may  take  with  them  into  the  Territories,  does  not  the 
same  equality  require  the  Federal  Government  to  recognize 


9 


and  enforce  in  the  Territories  the  constitutional  prohibition 
of  slavery  of  the  free  States,  which  their  citizens  may  take 
with  them  into  the  Territories  ?  It  certainly  does.  For  if 
the  citizens  of  one  portion  of  the  Union  have  the  right  to  take 
their  laws  on  the  subject  of  slavery  into  the  Territories,  and 
have  them  enforced  there,  the  citizens  of  the  other  portion  of 
the  Union  have  an  equal  right  to  take  their  laws  on  the  subject 
of  slavery  into  the  Territories,  and  have  them  enforced  there. 
“Each  State  has  the  same  rights  as  every  other  Slate — no 
more,  no  less,”  says  Mr.  Toombs.  So  say  I.  Then,  if  one 
State  has  a  right  to  have  its  laws  of  slave  property  recognized 
and  respected  in  the  Territories,  another  State  has  the  same 
right  to  have  its  laws  of  slave  property  recognized  and  re¬ 
spected  there.  But  if  Mr.  Toombs1  State  (Georgia)  and  my 
State  (Indiana)  were  the  two  States  so  insisting  upon  their 
rights  in  a  particular  Territory,  the  Federal  Government 
would  have  to  recognize,  respect,  and  enforce  in  that  Terri¬ 
tory,  a  law  establishing  slavery,  and  also  a  constitutional  pro¬ 
hibition  of  it.  This  brings  us  to  an  absurdity  ;  and  hence  it 
shows  that  the  premises  are  untenable.  The  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment  is  not  under  constitutional  obligations  to  respect, 
protect,  and  enforce,  in  the  Territories,  the  laws  of  property 
of  any  State  ;  for  it  cannot  enforce  all  ;  therefore,  to  be  just 
and  equal ,  it  must  enforce  none.  And  though  all  the  citizens 
of  all  the  States  have  the  right  to  go  into  the  common  Terri¬ 
tories,  and  use  and  occupy  them,  and  take  with  them  all  their 
property,  yet  none  of  them  have  a  right  to  take  with  them 
their  laws  of  property  of  the  States  they  leave,  establishing 
the  tenure  by  which  they  hold  their  property. 

And  this  is  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  law  long  known 
and  established,  to  wit :  that  a  citizen  or  subject  who  emigrates 
and  changes  his  domicil,  leaves  the  law  of  his  domicil  when 
he  emigrates,  and  takes  the  law  of  his  new  domicil  when  he 
takes  his  new  domicil.  As  slavery  is  the  creature  of  munici¬ 
pal  law,  and  not  of  general  law — neither  of  national  law  nor 
of  common  law — the  slaveholder  holds  his  slave  by  the  muni¬ 
cipal  law  of  his  State,  and  by  that  alone.  If  he  migrates  and 
goes  to  a  Territory,  he  either  has  a  right  to  take  the  law  of 
the  domicil  he  leaves  to  the  domicil  he  goes  to,  or  he  has  not. 
The  general  rule  as  to  all  “  the  rest  of  mankind”  is,  that  when 
he  migrates  he  leaves  the  law  of  the  domicil  he  leaves,  and 
takes  the  law  of  his  new  domicil.  But  Mr.  Butler,  and  South¬ 
ern  gentlemen,  insist  that  they  shall  be  allowed  to  take  with 
them  the  law  of  the  domicil  thev  leave,  so  far  as  it  makes 
slaves  property,  to  their  new  domicil,  or  else  they  are  not 
“  equal”  with  a  non-slaveholding  population.  In  the  language 


10 


of  Mr.  Toombs,  it  is  “aggression  and  he  thinks  that  no  fair 
man  can  deny  the  proposition  that  it  is  aggression.  Well,  if 
it  is  aggression  and  inequality  to  not  allow  the  man  from  a 
slave  State  to  go  to  the  Territories  and  take  with  him  (con¬ 
trary  to  the  common  rule  as  to  migration)  his  law  of  the  State 
he  leaves,  making  his  slaves  property,  will  it  not  be  equally 
aggression  and  inequality  to  not  allow  a  man  from  a  free 
State  to  go  to  the  Territories  and  take  with  him  his  law  (or 
constitutional  provision,  as  the  case  may  be,)  of  the  State  he 
leaves,  prohibiting  slavery  and  involuntary  servitude  ?  “  No 

fair  man  ”  can  say  but  what  it  will.  But  if  they  both  have 
the  right  to  do  so,  and  both  take  their  respective  laws  with 
them  into  a  Territory,  when  they  meet  they  find  that  they 
have  direct  contradictory  law  there  by  right ,  and  that  each 
side  of  the  contradiction  is  the  law  !  This  will  show  them, 
if  they  have  any  discernment,  that  the  premises  they  started 
off  upon  are  wrong,  because  they  lead  to  an  absurdity,  to  wit: 
that  two  contradictory  la^ys  are  both  the  law  at  the  same 
time  and  place  !  !  And  if  they  are  dispassionate  enough  to 
reflect  and  reason  about  it,  instead  of  going  to  fighting  at 
once  for  the  mastery,  they  will  see  that,  as  they  are  equals  in 
every  respect,  if  one  has  a  right  to  bring  with  him  his  law  of 
the  domicil  he  has  left,  the  other  has  the  equal  right  to  bring 
with  him  his  law  ;  and  as  this  has  practically  led  to  an  absurd¬ 
ity,  they  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  rule  of  the  case, 
which  has  been  long  held  to  be  the  rule,  that  neither  had  a 
right  to  bring  with  him  the  law  of  the  domicil  he  left,  is  the 
true  rule. 

Mr.  Butlers  and  Mr.  Toombs’  “equality,”  then,  is,  to  give 
the  slaveholder  the  right  to  take  his  law  of  slavery  to  the  Ter¬ 
ritories,  which,  if  the  law,  puts  down  the  law  of  the  people  of 
the  free  States ;  and  thus  they  have  it  all  their  own  way,  and 
still  call  that  “equality  and  Mr.  Butler  threatens  to  bolt  the 
Union  if  he  does  not  get  “equality”  as  thus  defined  by  him. 
And  Mr.  Toombs  says  that  their  construction  of  this  point 
“  works  no  wrong  to  any  portion  of  the  Republic,”  though  it 
makes  the  notions  of  one  portion  of  the  Republic  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  slavery  the  law  of  all  the  Territories  ;  while  the  no¬ 
tions  of  the  other  portion,  and  that  “the  greater  number," 
too,  is  overrid  and  suppressed  in  all  the  Territories,  while  they 
remain  Territories. 

But  does  the  fact  that  the  opinions  of  the  slave  States  as  to 
the  institution  of  slavery  are  made  paramount  in  the  Territo¬ 
ries,  “  work  no  wrong  to  any  portion  of  the  Republic?" 
Are  not  the  opinions  of  the  free  States  as  to  the  institution 
as  sacred  to  them,  and  entitled  to  as  much  respect  as  those  of 


11 


* 


the  slave  States  ?  While  the  people  of  the  slave  States  pre¬ 
fer  to  have  the  African  race  among  them,  and  believe  that  the 
institution  is  beneficial  to  both  races,  the  mass  of  the  people 
of  the  free  States  prefer  not  to  have  the  African  race  among 
them,  and  believe  that  the  institution  is  injurious  to  the  State 
and  country  where  it  exists.  Both  the  race  and  the  institu¬ 
tion  are  distasteful  to  them.  Are  not  their  views,  and  opin¬ 
ions,  and  tastes  in  the  premises,  entitled  to  as  much  respect 
and  regard  as  those  of  the  people  of  the  slave  States  ?  If  to 
say  that  the  views  and  opinions  of  the  people  of  the  slave 
States  on  the  subject  shall  not  be  paramount  in  the  Territo¬ 
ries,  is  aggressive,  and  works  a  wrong  to  them,  is  it  correct 
to  say  that  though  the  views  and  opinions  of  the  people  of 
the  free  States  on  the  subject  shall  not  be  paramount  in  the 
Territories,  it  is  not  aggressive,  and  works  no  wrong  to  them? 
If  it  is,  then  the  people  of  the  free  States  have  not  “equality.” 

“  Of  course  Ohio  is  ahead  of  Kentucky,  and  Illinois  of  Mis¬ 
souri,  for  white  men  are  vastly  superior  to  negroes  ;  but 
slavery’  has  nothing  to  do  with  it.” — N*  Y.  Day  Book ,  of 
June  6th ,  1856.  The  people  of  the  free  States,  however, 
think  it  has,  and  prefer  that  the  new  Territories  shall  be 
placed  in  the  better  rather  than  the  w*orse  condition,  as  ex¬ 
emplified  by  the  contrast  of  those  States. 

Mr.  Toombs,  in  his  lecture  in  Tremont  Temple,  Boston, 
says  : 


The  question  of  material  advantage  would  be  settled  on  the  side  of  slavery, 
whenever  it  was  shown  that  our  mixed  society  was  more  productive  and  prosperous 
than  any  other  mixed  society  with  the  inferior  race  free  instead  of  slave.  The  ques¬ 
tion  is  not  whether  we  could  not  be  more  prosperous  and  happy  with  these  three 
and  a  half  millions  of  slaves  in  Africa,  and  their  places  filled  with  an  equal  number 
of  hardy,  intelligent,  and  enterprizing  citizens  of  the  superior  race;  but  it  is  simply 
whether,  while  we  have  them  among  us,  we  would  be  most  prosperous  with  them 
in  freedom  or  bondage. 

Whilst  this  indirectly  admits  that  the  slave  States  would  be 
better  off  with  the  negroes  in  Africa,  and  their  places  supplied 
by  whites,  it  insists  that  as  they  have  them  there  they  must 
keep  them  slaves.  But  the  negroes  are  not  in  the  Territories, 
and  the  whole  argument  to  sustain  that  which  Mr.  Toombs 
says  is  not  the  question  where  they  are,  applies  to  the  Terri¬ 
tories,  because  the  negroes  are  not  there.  The  people  of  the 
free  States  think  that  it  would  be  injurious  to  the  Territories 
to  let  them  go  there.  They  want  the  “  superior  race  ”  there 
without  the  inferior,  which  they  think  the  better  policy  for 
the  Territories  ;  and  Mr.  Toombs  indirectly  admits  that  they 
will  be  more  prosperous  and  happy  if  that  policy  is  pursued. 
And  yet  he  says  it  would  “  work  no  wrong  to  any  portion  of 


UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 


12 


the  Republic  ”  to  have  this  policy  crushed  and  the  opposite 
one  placed  in  the  ascendant. 

Man  is  a  social  being.  Half  of  his  enjoyment  in  this  life 
springs  from  society.  In  and  upon  the  society  around  him 
depends  most  of  his  enjoyments  or  disquietudes.  The  people 
of  the  slave  and  free  States  differ  toto  coelo  in  their  tastes,  no¬ 
tions,  and  habits  on  this  subject.  The  people  of  the  slave 
States  are  content  and  enjoy  themselves  in  a  mixed  society 
of  the  two  races  ;  while  the  mass  of  the  people  of  the  free 
States  are  not  content  and  do  not  enjoy  themselves  with  the 
black  race.  They  prefer  to  be  separate  from  them.  The 
Abolitionists  form  the  principal  exception  to  this  remark,  but 
they  are  few  and  far  between  in  the  free  States  ;  while  the 
pro-slavery  men  form  the  other  and  the  only  other  exception, 
and  they  are  fewrer  and  still  farther  between.  The  mass, 
though,  of  the  people  of  the  free  States  prefer  to  be  separate 
from  the  blacks,  and  not  have  them  in  their  community  either 
as  slaves  or  free.  They  have  the  equal  right  to  go  to  the 
Territories — the  common  property — and  occupy  and  enjoy  it 
in  common  with  their  brethren  from  the  slave  States,  and  the 
equal  right  to  be  consulted  in  determining  what  its  population 
and  society  shall  be.  If  the  presence  of  the  negro  race  is 
disagreeable  and  offensive  to  them,  (to  say  nothing  of  the  in¬ 
stitution  of  slavery,  which  is  very  disagreeable  to  many,  and 
in  their  opinion  sinful  and  wrong.)  to  crowd  the  black  race  on 
them  against  their  will,  it  would  seem  would  be  somewhat 
“  aggressive,”  and  would  “work”  some  “wrong”  to  them. 
The  common  law  has  always  said  that  if  I  erect  and  maintain 
a  nuisance,  to  the  annoyance  of  my  neighbor,  that  I  work 
him  a  wrrong,  and  am  held  liable  for  it.  If  five  partners  ac¬ 
quire  an  estate  in  common,  and  two  of  them  desire  to  place 
something  upon  it  that  they  have  and  use  upon  their  private 
estates,  but  which  is  something  that  the  other  three  do  not 
wish  placed  there,  and  to  some  of  whom  it  would  be  very  of¬ 
fensive,  shall  the  will  of  the  two  be  paramount  to  that  of  the 
other  three  ?  And  if  it  is  made  so,  is  there  no  “  aggression  ” 
any  where  ?  and  no  wrong  worked  to  any  one  ? 

May  I  not,  then,  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Toombs,  say,  that 
“the  exercise  of  this”  establishing  of  slavery  in  the  Territo¬ 
ries  “  violates  this  equality,  and  violates  justice.  *  *  This” 

establishing  of  slavery  “destroys  this  equality,  excludes  a  part 
of  the  joint  owners  from  an  equal  participation  and  enjoyment 
of  the  common  domain,”  because  they  will  not  live  where  ne¬ 
groes  and  slavery  are  if  they  can  find  any  other  place  to  go 
to,  “and  against  justice  and  right,  appropriates  it  to  the  ”  less 
u  number.  Therefore,  so  far  from  being  a  necessary  and 


13 


proper  means  of  executing  granted  powers,  it  is  an  arbitrary 
and  despotic  usurpation,  against  the  letter,  the  spirit,  and  the 
declared  purposes  of  the  Constitution  ;  for  its  exercise  neither 
“•  promotes  a  more  perfect  union,  nor  establishes  justice,  nor 
insures  domestic  tranquility, [witness  Kansas]  nor  provides  for 
the  common  defense,  nor  promotes  the  general  welfare,  nor  se¬ 
cures  the  blessings  of  liberty  to  ourselves  or  our  posterity,”  but 
on  the  contrary,  puts  in  jeopardy  all  these  inestimable  bless¬ 
ings.  It  loosens  the  bonds  of  union,  seeks  to  establish  injus¬ 
tice,  disturbs  domestic  tranquility,  [ vide  Kansas]  weakens  the 
common  defense,  and  endangers  the  general  welfare  by  sow¬ 
ing  hatreds  and  discords  among  our  people,  and  puts  in  immi¬ 
nent  peril  the  liberties  of  the  white  race,  by  whom  and  for 
whom  the  Constitution  was  made,  in  a  vain  effort  to  bring 
them  down  to  an  equality  with  the  African,  or  to  raise  the 
African  to  an  equality  with”  the  free,  white,  enterprizing,  and 
intelligent  citizen  laborers.  “Providence  has  ordered  it  oth¬ 
erwise,  and  vain  will  be  the  efforts  of  man  to  resist  this  decree. ' 
This  effort  is  as  wicked  as  it  is  foolish  and  unauthorized.” 
And  “  I  do  affirm  that  the  moment  when  you  said  we  should 
be  shut  out  from  the  common  Territories  of  the  Union  unless” 
we  agreed  to  live  among  negroes  and  in  the  midst  of  the  insti¬ 
tution  of  slavery,  u  it  was  aggression.  It  is  aggression  to  ex¬ 
clude  ”  sixteen  “ States”  and  two-thirds  of  the  entire  white 
population  “of  this  Union  from  the  common  Territories,  pur¬ 
chased  by  the  common  blood  and  common  treasure.  We 
think  no  fair  man  can  deny  that  proposition.” 

The  whole  of  Mr.  Toombs’  constitutional  argument,  by 
substituting  in  it  establishing  for  prohibition  of  slavery,  is 
equally  pertinent  against  him  and  his  side  of  the  argument. 

The  truth  is,  the  Constitution  only  guarantees  to  the  States 
their  rights  to  determine  for  themselves  their  institutions 
within  their  own  territory.  It  does  not  guarantee  that  any 
institution  a  State  may  have  shall  be  taken  into  the  Territo¬ 
ries.  As  to  the  Territories,  the  Constitution  gives  to  Congress 
the  power  to  “  make  all  neeeful  rules  and  regulations  ;”  and 
that  is  all  that  is  said  in  the  Constitution  on  the  subject.  If 
any  rules  are  needful  to  be  made  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  in 
the  Territories,  Congress  has  to  make  them,  and  no  other 
body,  unless  she  can  and  do  delegate  to  it  the  power.  And, if 
no  “rules”  are  made  there  on  the  subject,  slavery  will  not  ex¬ 
ist  there  ;  for  it  takes  a  “rule”  to  create  it  in  a  place,  and 
that  a  special  rule,  too.  The  general  “rule”  forbids  it.  So 
does  the  general  sense  of  civilized  nations. 

If  Southern  gentlemen  insist  that  it  is  “needful”  to  make 
a  rule  on  the  subject,  in  the  Territories,  the  people  of  the  free 


14 


States  certainly  have  a  right  to  determine  for  themselves 
what  is  the  needful  or  proper  rule  to  make.  And  their  exer¬ 
cising  their  judgment  in  the  premises,  is  no  more  aggressive, 
or  a  just  ground  of  offense  to  the  people  of  the  slave  States, 
than  is  the  exercising  by  the  people  of  the  slave  States  of 
their  judgment  in  the  premises,  aggressive,  and  a  just  ground 
of  offense  to  the  people  of  the  free  States.  And  as  it  is  a 
question  upon  which  we  differ  totally  and  radically,  and  there 
is  no  middle  ground  to  occupy,  the  only  rational  way  of  ar¬ 
ranging  the  difficulty  would  seem  to  be  to  divide  the  territory 
equitably  and  fairly,  in  proportion  to  the  free  whites  who  en¬ 
tertained  these  different  views.  This  the  Missouri  Compro¬ 
mise  undertook  to  do  ;  and,  as  it  is  an  exciting  subject,  all 
good  citizens  acquiesced  in  that  arrangement  for  the  sake  of 
peace.  The  compromise  measures  of  1850  proceeded  on  the 
same  principle  of  peace,  and  of  quieting  the  public  mind,  and 
were  insisted  on,  at  the  time,  as  being  a  “  finality  ”  upon  the 
exciting  subject.  The  Democratic  party,  in  its  National 
Convention  of  1852,  pledged  itself  to  the  nation  to  “ resist  all 
attempts  at  renewing,  in  Congress  or  out  of  it,  the  agitation 
of  the  slavery  question,  under  whatever  shape  or  color  the 
attempt  might  be  made.”  The  Whig  party,  which  met  soon 
after,  made  a  like  pledge.  They  were  the  great  parties  of 
the  country,  and  they  so  pledged  themselves  to  assure  the 
country  that  the  subject  was  finally  arranged  and  disposed  of, 
and  that  they  would  not  allow  the  Pandora’s  box  to  be  again 
opened. 

u  Whom  the  gods  intend  to  destroy,  they  first  make  mad.” 

This  is  claimed  as  an  oracle  from  a  heathen,  while  I  am  of 
opinion  that  the  idea  was  borrowed  from  a  divine  source, 
through  the  prophet  Jeremiah.  But  it  is  a  truism,  come  from 
what  source  it  may,  and  seems  to  apply  here. 

These  pledges  were  not  eighteen  months  old  until  they 
were  violated,  at  the  instance  of  Southern  men,  by  introduc¬ 
ing  provisions  in  relation  to  slavery,  into  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
bill,  by  which  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  repealed,  and 
the  ultraists  on  the  two  sides  of  the  question,  invited  to  the 
plains  of  Kansas  to  settle  the  question  of  slavery  in  the  Ter¬ 
ritory  for  themselves  ;  who  very  naturally,  (as  it  is  a  question 
you  cannot  arrange  by  argument,)  went  to  contending  at  once 
for  the  mastery,  resulting  in  a  now  begun  civil  war. 

This  was  the  extreme  of  madness  and  folly.  It  will  'pre¬ 
vent  slavery  from  being  extended  into  Kansas ,  or  any  other 
Territory. 

For  as  it  cannot  constitutionally  go  there  without  the  assent 
of  the  free  States,  or  of  a  portion  of  them,  this  breach  of 


15 


compromises  on  the  subject,  and  of  good  faith,  both  of  party 
faith  and  of  public  faith,  and  the  claiming  by  the  South  of  all 
the  Territories,  instead  of  being  satisfied  with  that  portion 
assigned  them  by  compromise,  should  induce,  and  will  induce 
the  people  of  the  free  States  to  act  upon  their  own  judgment 
as  to  the  propriety  of  extending  slavery  into  the  Territories.  If 
they  do  so,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  question  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  settled  against  the  further  extension  of  slavery. 
The  sooner  the  slave  States  are  fully  aware  of  this — that  this 
is,  and  will  be  the  result — the  better  for  them.  For  they  say 
that  expansion  is  necessary  for  them — for  both  the  black  and 
white  races — and  that  “  it  is  the  refinement  of  cruelty  to  the 
blacks  to  pen  them  up  in  the  old  States.”  Mr.  Toombs  fur¬ 
ther  says  :  u  The  condition  of  the  African  (whatever  may  be 
his  interests)  may  not  be  permanent  among  us ;  he  may  find 
his  exodus  in  the  unvarying  laws  of  population.” — ( Address 
in  Boston .)  They  therefore  should  look  the  matter  calmly  in 
the  face,  and  make  arrangements  for  this  exodus  to  Africa , 
instead  of  to  the  Territories.  The  mass  of  the  people  of  the 
free  States,  having  rid  themselves  of  the  race,  conceive  that 
they  have  rid  themselves  of  the  responsibility  of  their  reten¬ 
tion  or  exodus  ;  yet  they  would  cheerfully  aid  their  brethren 
of  the  slave  States  in  effecting  such  exodus  to  Africa  as  they 
might  devise,  consistent  with  humanity.  But  they  do  not  de¬ 
sire  to  deliver  the  territory  of  this  continent  to  the  u  inferior 
race,”  and  they  will  not  consent  to  its  being  done.  They 
want  it  for  the  “-superior  race.”  It  is  the  work  of  wisdom, 
then,  for  the  people  of  the  slave  States,  instead  of  insisting 
upon  rights  that  the  Constitution  does  not  give  them,  and 
thereby  endangering  this  happy  Union,  to  set  themselves,  in 
good  faith,  to  the  adoption  of  measures  that  will  look  to  the 
“expansion”  of  the  black  race  in  Africa,  rather  than  into  the 
Territories  of  this  Union. 

By  disturbing  the  “finality,”  and  “renewing  in  Congress 
the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question,”  Southern  gentlemen 
have  closed  the  door  against  the  further  extension  of  their 
institution  into  the  Territories,  let  the  Presidential  election  of 
this  year  result  as  it  may.  And  if  this  want  of  expansion 
shall  prove  the  death-knell  of  their  institution,  they  can  justly 
blame  no  one  for  it  but  themselves.  Their  course,  policy, 
and  doctrines  are  suicidal,  and  they  seem  to  be  demented. 
Therefore  the  before  cited  maxim  seems  applicable,  and  shows 
that  the  Divine  Mind  is  preparing  the  way  for  that  exodus  of 
which  Mr.  Toombs  speaks. 


Note. — After  the  foregoing  was  sent  to  the  printer,  the  se- 


16 


cond  volume  of  Benton’s  Thirty  Years  in  the  Senate,  came  to 
the  hands  of  the  writer.  He  found  therein,  at  page  696  et 
sequitur,  views  expressed  similar  to  some  of  those  expressed 
in  the  foregoing  tract.  While  he  is  glad  to  find  his  views  sus¬ 
tained  by  so  high  authority  as  that  of  Senator  Benton,  it  is 
due  to  the  writer  that  he  should  state  that  he  had  no  know¬ 
ledge  that  such  was  the  fact,  until  after  the  foregoing  was 
written.  The  writer  first  advanced  the  substance  of  these 
views,  nearly  two  years  ago,  in  a  letter  to  a  friend  in  Texas, 
which  was  published  there. 


\ 


/ 


\ 


